legalize all drugs - free money and freedom

That is all . Dont know how... dont know why ......but It must be controlled

 

Do you believe in legalizing just marijuana, or also all other illegal substances?

 

I believe in decriminalizing the possession of all drugs, this doesnt no holds barred legalization. Think alcohol regulation.

If you commit a crime while under the influence of a drug then the maximum punishment should become the minimum.

There is a very small amount of people using hard-core drugs... but the market for these drugs is super-duper-hyper-inflated even though they are relatively cheap to produce. Limited supply+ a steady dedicated market = insanely high profit margins. This creates a black market and all the violence and crime that comes with it. This doesn't even begin to touch on the so-called legal market the drug war creates, from the prison industries to the enforcement entities.

Like illegal immigration... if you REALLY want to stop it... eliminate the profit margin.

 

So, should we legalize bank robberies and subject our society to more theft, just to stop violence from armed bank robbers?

Second of all, what exactly do you mean by this statement that "all drugs should be decriminalized"? Decriminalization can mean either one of two separate things.

1-Making something legal
2-Keeping something illegal, but reducing the harsh penalties and having softer laws against something illegal.

 

That makes no sense. Bank robberies are crimes of theft. Where would you go to purchase the goods that a bank robbery produces?

You left out the word "possession" Very key word. Driving under the influence of any drug would still be illegal.. still would be illegal to sell to minors... etc... that why I posted "I believe in decriminalizing the possession of all drugs, this doesnt mean no holds barred legalization. Think alcohol regulation

 

It also has the effect of reducing their demand for labor. Well funded criminals organizations need large amounts of labor. They need mules, soldiers, dealers, lookouts, etc. That labor is recruited from the streets, often starting with children. While there will always be a criminal element, it will not have the funding to feed off the marginal.

 

I believe alleged conservatives should justify nanny-State taxes if they want a nanny-State to regulate every aspect of their lives.

 

I forgot what your opinions are on this specific issue. Do you support legalizing just marijuana, or all illegal substances in general? And if so, why?

 

I would like to take this time and opportunity to blame the right for not insisting on the morality of not bearing false witness to our own laws instead of drug tests regarding the concept and legal doctrine of employment at will.

 

Okay, so you want to legalize all drugs, but with some regulations on those substances, just like with alcohol. That's not decriminalization-that's legalization.

 

Our elected representatives are delegated the power to Regulate forms of Commerce (well) in our Constitutions.

 

I can't think of what good alcohol regulation does. It pushes kids to be binge drinkers as the neo-puritans work desperately to keep it out of their hands. It enriches alcohol suppliers and their political cronies. It encourages large police forces to do dumb things like the attack on the poor girl in Virginia recently (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/28/six-plainclothes-cops-attack-and-arrest). It prevents people from starting businesses around craft alcohol because the barriers to entry are enormous (a friend of mine has spent 2 years and 10's of thousands getting her craft absinthe through the regulatory process, and faces numerous hurdles to distribution.)

I guess if you are a bureaucrat, a thug, or a politician, alcohol regulation is a good thing. Other than to those types, where is alcohol regulation useful?

What difference does it make if they are under the influence or not? It's like "hate" crimes. A crime is a crime.

Right. re-legalize immigration. Now that sounds like freedom.

 

I don't know why people have so much trouble understanding the difference between a crime that involves a victim and one that doesn't.

Try these scenarios:

Scenario 1. You are in a bank, and a man runs in and puts a gun to a teller's head and demands money. You happen to be in a position where you can stop the robber, and it will definitely hurt him when you do so. When you stop the robbery, is the robber now a victim because you have harmed him in order to protect the teller or is the teller the victim and the robber the perpetrator of a crime?

The answer should be obvious, but maybe it isn't, considering your question. The robber has initiated aggression against the teller and is threatening his or her life. the teller is the victim of a crime of force or fraud. You, by intervening, act in defense of a victim, and you have not initiated aggression, but have taken measures to stop what was already initiated. You are a hero.

Scenario 2: You are walking through a neighborhood. You notice that a man is sitting on his porch and he is lighting up a joint. You pull out your gun or baseball bat or whatever and your run over and tell him to stop. He refuses and you shoot him or bash him with your bat. Now, who is the victim in this scenario?

 

*sigh*

Honestly, most cops don't commit actions of policy brutality against pot smokers in the vast majority states where marijuana is illegal. Why are you comparing a cop that gives somebody a fine for smoking pot, to somebody that violently attacks a pot smoker?

 

If there's no victim, there is no crime. Government has no legitimacy where it uses its police powers to prohibit what peaceful people do. Drugs (possession, use, sale, etc.), prostitution, adultery, gay people kissing in public. None of these are crimes.

 

Did I mention cops in my scenario?

Are you one? Well, pretend that you aren't.

 

http://www.healthydrugfreecolorado....galization What Do You Want to Know FINAL.pdf

 

What's Reefer Madness, in this specific context?

I know that Reefer Madness was one of Hearst's films that he used during his 1930s smear campaigns, but when you speak of some forms of Reefer Madness, it doesn't seem to me like you're talking about that movie.

 

no alcohol is already bad enough. im against legalisation of drugs. people on drugs dont know what they are doing just like drunk people and could be danger to society. probably worse then drunk people because drugs have a pyschotic/hallucination effect which alcohol doesnt. and some drugs lead to very easy addiction like heroin after first to third consumption you are already addicted. if all people are druggies who would do the jobs.

 

I would agree because the "money" was a means of gaining political support for the legalization. Had it been addressed exclusively as an issue of the Rights of the Person it would have had less political support.

Here in WA we had something similar related to privatizing the sale of alcohol that the state had been selling. We had a referendum where the backers were corporations like Costco and they imposed a 10,000 sq ft limit on the private business that would be able to sell hard liquor basically shutting out a small business owner from selling hard liquor. The law didn't allow the small liquor store to exist when passed. We needed the support of the large corporations to get the referendum passed so that restriction was acceptable for passage but after two years (based upon the State Constitution) the state legislature can change the law. I've already contacted my representatives about removing that restriction upon the expiration of the two years. There is a good case for "let the little guy" compete with the large corporations.

We can do the same thing related to marijuana but the case is less compelling from a government standpoint because they would be "giving up the bucks" and that is not an easy thing to accomplish. It will probably take another referendum to allow private growing for personal consumption after the current law has been effect for two or more years. First came legalization and next we can address the excessive taxation (i.e. 25% between grower and wholesaler, another 25% between the wholesaler and the retailer, and another 25% between the retailer and the customer under the current law) and liberty of the person.

 

This belief is juxtaposed to the truth in most cases and is specifically false related to marijuana. Alcohol can incapacitate a person but that is not the case with most other drugs nor does normal use affect employment in any manner. The typical drug user does not do drugs at work anymore than the typical drinker and their work performance is completely unaffected.

People on "drugs" with only very rare exceptions do know what they're doing unlike those that over-consume alcohol. Certain drugs like cocaine and meth actually improve the performance of the person because they're stimulants that increase both physical and mental performance. This is the very reason these types of stimulants are often used by individuals because they do improve the person's performance.

Yes, there are some drugs that are depressants that do relax a person and make them less motivated. The opiates, like heroin, typically fall into this category but none of them are as bad as alcohol which is a far worse depressant by comparison in most cases. I would hazard a guess that for every person that "passes out" from heroin use that between 100-1000 people pass out from alcohol use but I don't have a statistical source for that belief.

What is a known fact is that normal drug use does not impair a person's working career, drugs are not used at work, and that the "illegal" drugs are actually superior to the use of alcohol. I also know from personal experience (my tour in Vietnam during the war) that given a choice between alcohol and marijuana most people would rather use marijuana which is far superior in all categories when compared to alcohol. A soldier in Vietnam could smoke pot and not be adversely affected and this was in a "life and death" situation were we all depended upon each other just to stay alive. A drunk was worthless, and worse, actually threatened the life of their fellow soldiers because of their intoxication.

Legalization of marijuana IMHO would actually reduce the use of alcohol in America and alcohol is far more harmful to society. We're comparing a person that can be totally incapacitate by alcohol with a person that is never incapacitated because of marijuana and there is a huge difference between the two.

 

What makes you think that legalizing pot will reduce alcohol consumption in America? There's no evidence which supports this statement. Just because more people start smoking pot, this does not automatically mean that they will also give up their alcohol. Rather than replacing alcohol, legalizing pot will just add a second very popular recreational drug to the list.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you against legalizing just marijuana? I personally support just legalizing pot, but I'm strongly against legalizing drugs which are very addictive (such as heroin), and hallucinogenic drugs which cause violence (such as PCP and LSD), but marijuana is in a separate category from those substances.

 

During "Prohibition" there were no age limits at the "Speakeasy's" and anyone could walk in and order a drink. With the repeal of the 18th Amendment an underage person cannot walk into a bar and drink legally.

Legalization of marijuana will not instantly result in no underage users but it will reduce it because it overwhelmingly removes the product from black market that doesn't care about the user's age. It makes is far harder for an underage person to acquire marijuana for use so the "casual" teenage user is less likely to have access to the marijuana just like a teenager is less likely to drink alcohol today than they were under Prohibition when no age limits existed and access was widespread because it was an unregulated black market commodity.

 

As noted I can only use anecdotal experience which doesn't provide statistical evidence. As a soldier going to Vietnam (1968-1969) almost everyone I knew there had been a "drinker" before becoming a soldier. Marijuana was everywhere in Vietnam growing wild. We often used it on our helmets for "camouflage" which served a dual purpose (i.e. it dried it out for consumption) and I've walked through patches where the plants were like small trees. We also had access to unlimited alcohol if we wanted it. For example at a Special Forces "A" camp the first two things that went in were the arms/ammunition supply room and the bar that were usually connected in the same underground bunker. Special Forces used their own helicopters to keep the bar well stocked. Many of those in Special Forces were career soldiers and were "alki-trippers" (our name for drinkers) but many also smoked pot.

The average GI coming from the States, given the choice between alcohol and marijuana, overwhelmingly choose marijuana over alcohol. I would make a rough estimate that 95% of the US soldiers in Vietnam smoked pot regularly and 5% drank alcohol and 100% used one or the other.

This is obviously anecdotal based upon my personal experience but I believe it's a valid reason for believing that people would prefer marijuana over alcohol because most people really aren't interested in becoming incapacitated and alcohol can incapacitate a person while marijuana cannot.

 

Smoking pot impairs short-term memory skills and reaction time skills, which can cause car accidents in emergency situations. If marijuana was legalized, there's no question that since pot usage will increase, there will be more people driving stoned, and there will be way more car accidents which are connected to people driving while stoned.